BIENVENIDO IBARLE vs.

ESPERANZA PO
GR No. L-5064
February 27, 1953
FACTS:

Winstanley and Navarro were husband and wife. Winstanley died, leaving Navarro and their minor children as heirs.
Winstanley left a parcel of land in Cebu, which was conjugal property.
Subsequently, Navarro sold the land to spouses Canoy. Canoy sold the land to Ibarle.
The two deeds of the two sales above were not registered.
Navarro, after being appointed guardian of her minor children, sold one-half of the subject land to Po.
The children alleged that they are the rightful owners of the property and filed an action to annul the sale.

ISSUE:
WON the sale of the property to Po was valid? NO.
HELD:

NO, the sale was void as it deprived the children of their right to the inheritance, which was transmitted upon the death
of Winstanley.
When Catalina Navarro Vda. de Winstanley sold the entire parcel to the Canoy spouses, one-half of it already
belonged to the seller's children.
No formal or judicial declaration being needed to confirm the children's title, it follows that the first sale was null and
void in so far as it included the children's share.
It is immaterial whether a short or long period of time lapses between the death of the predecessor and the entry into
possession of the property of the inheritance because the right is always deemed to be retroactive from the moment of
death.
Article 657 of the old Civil Code provides that the rights to the succession of a person are transmitted from the moment
of his death. in a slightly different language, this article is incorporated in the new Civil Code as article 777.
The moment of death is the determining factor when the heirs acquire a definite right to the inheritance, whether such
right is pure or contingent.
On the other hand, the sale to Po having been made by authority of the competent court was undeniably legal and
effective. The fact that it has not been recorded is of no consequence. If registration were necessary, still the nonregistration would not avail in favor of Ibarle.

YAP TUA vs. YAP CA KUAN

GR No. 6845
September 1, 1914
FACTS:
In 1909, a certain Perfecto Gabriel, represented Yap Tua (PFF) and presented a petition in the CFI, asking that the will
of the deceased Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong be admitted to probate, as her last will and testament.
It appears that the will was signed by the deceased, together with Zacarias, Tabora and Paez.
The court admitted the probate and appointed Yap Tua (DFT) as executor of said will.
Thereafter, Yap Ca Kuan and Yap Ca Llu appeared and presented a petition, alleging that they were interested in the
matters of said will and desired to intervene and asked that a guardian ad litem be appointed to represent them.
The court appointed Gabriel La O guardian ad litem of the intervening parties.
Gabriel La O presented a motion alleging that the purported will of the deceased was null on the ground that
a. At the time of the wills execution, the deceased was not mentally capacitated to execute it, due to her sickness.
b. The deceaseds signature to the will was obtained through fraud and illegal influence of who would benefit from it.
c. There were two wills made by the deceased, so the 2nd or latter will should prevail and revoke the 1st will.
ISSUE:
WON the will was duly executed and valid? YES.
HELD

YES. The second will executed on August 11, 1909 was duly executed and valid. The testatrix was held to have been
compos mentis, despite the physicians testimony to the contrary.
Upon a full consideration of the record, SC found that a preponderance of the proof shows that Tomasa Elizaga Yap
Caong did execute, freely and voluntarily, while she was in the right use of all her faculties, the will
SC found that no undue influence had been exercised over the mind of the deceased. While it is true that some of the
witnesses testified that the brother of Tomasa, one Lorenzo, had attempted to unduly influence her mind in the
execution of he will, upon the other hand, there were several witnesses who testified that Lorenzo did not attempt, at
the time of the execution of the will, to influence her mind in any way.
The lower court having had an opportunity to see, to hear, and to note the witnesses during their examination reached
the conclusion that a preponderance of the evidence showed that:
a. No undue influence had been used
b. The deceased was of sound mind and memory and in the possession of her faculties at the time she signed this
will.
SC found no good reason in the record for reversing the trial courts findings.
While the testimony of Dr. Papa is very strong relating to the mental condition of Tomasa Elizaga Yap Caong, yet,
nevertheless, his testimony related to a time perhaps 24 hours before the execution of the will in question.
Several witnesses testified that at the time the will was presented to her for her signature, she was of sound mind and
memory and asked for a pen and ink and kept the will in her possession for 10 or 15 minutes and finally signed it.
It was proved that the 1st will was indeed executed by the deceased. Several witnesses testified to that fact. The mere
fact, however, that she executed a 1st will is no proof that she did not execute a 2nd will. She had a perfect right, by will,
to dispose of her property, in accordance with the provisions of law, up to the very last of moment her life. She had a
perfect right to change, alter, modify or revoke any and all of her former wills and to make a new one.
Although the deceaseds signatures were different in the two wills, several witnesses testified that they saw her write
her full name. SC concluded that if the deceased signed any portion of her name to the will, with the intention to sign
the same, that the will amount to a signature.

CELSO ICASIANO vs. NATIVIDAD & ENRIQUE ICASIANO

GR No. L-18979
June 30, 1964
FACTS:
Celso Icasiano (plaintiff) filed a petition for allowance and admission to probate the alleged will of the deceased Josefa
Villacorte as well as to appoint him executor of such will.
Natividad and Enrique Icasiano, children of the testatrix, filed her opposition and petitioned to have herself appointed
as special administrator. Celso objected.
The court issued an order to appoint the Philippine Trust Company as special administrator.
Celso presented evidence to the effect that the deceased executed a last will and testament before a notary public and
published before and attested by three instrumental witnesses.
Defendants introduced expert testimony to the effect that the signatures of the testatrix in the duplicate are not genuine
nor were they written or affixed on the same occasion as the original
Defendants alleged that granting that the documents were genuine, they were executed through mistake and with
undue influence and pressure, because the testatrix was deceived into adopting as her last will and testament the
wishes of those who will stand to benefit from the provisions of the will, as may be inferred from the facts and
circumstances.
Defendants also alleged that one of the witnesses failed to sign page three of the will.
ISSUE:
WON the last will and testament was validly executed? YES.
HELD:

YES. The last will and testament is valid.

The court is not bound by the expert testimony of the witnesses presented by the opposition. On the whole, SC did not
find the testimony of the oppositor's expert sufficient to overcome that of the notary and instrumental witnesses.
SC examined the record and are satisfied, as the trial court was, that the testatrix signed both original and duplicate
copies of the will spontaneously, on the same in the presence of the three attesting witnesses, the notary public who
acknowledged the will and Atty. Samson, who actually prepared the documents
The opinion of expert for oppositors, Mr. Felipe Logan, the signatures were forged is unconvincing, not merely because
it is directly contradicted by expert Martin Ramos for the proponents, but principally because of the paucity of the
standards used by the expert to support the conclusion that the differences between the standard and questioned
signatures are beyond the writer's range of normal scriptural variation.
The expert has, in fact, used as standards only three other signatures of the testatrix besides those affixed to the
original of the testament. SC felt that with so few standards, the expert's opinion and the signatures in the duplicate
could not be those of the testatrix becomes extremely hazardous.
This is particularly so since the comparison charts Nos. 3 and 4 fail to show convincingly that there are radical
differences that would justify the charge of forgery, taking into account the advanced age of the testatrix, the evident
variability of her signatures, and the effect of writing fatigue, the duplicate being signed right the original.
These, factors were not discussed by the expert.
The will and its duplicate were executed in Tagalog, a language known to and spoken by both the testator and the
witnesses, and read to and by the testatrix and Atty. Fermin Samson, together before they were actually signed. The
attestation clause is also in a language known to and spoken by the testatrix and the witnesses.
SC found no adequate evidence of fraud or undue influence. The fact that some heirs are more favored than others is
proof of neither. Diversity of apportionment is the usual reason for making a testament; otherwise, the decedent might
as well die intestate.
The testamentary dispositions that the heirs should not inquire into other property and that they should respect the
distribution made in the will, under penalty of forfeiture of their shares in the free part do not suffice to prove fraud or
undue influence
The inadvertent failure of one witness to affix his signature to one page of a testament, due to the simultaneous lifting
of two pages in the course of signing, is not per se sufficient to justify denial of probate.
The law should not be so strictly and literally interpreted as to penalize the testatrix on account of the inadvertence of a
single witness over whose conduct she had no control.